Yep, I've been saying for several years now that the D90 was the first DSLR that wasn't made obsolete by the next model released. It's image quality holds up to this day. The noise control was a massive leap over the D80/D200.
@@eureinabethdomdom2647 Because it's maximum iso goes up to 3200. If you compare it to the newer cameras, lets say the z50, which maximum iso is 51200, you realise the difference... I go up to 320 iso and only in daylight, when I want to achieve a faster shutter speed. Otherwise I use the Lo1 setting, which means 100 iso, and of course tripod! What do you shoot with the D90 and you want to raise your iso?
I still use my D90 bought 14 years ago , using the original nikon battery and 2 third party batteries , when I bought it new I expected to keep it for 3-5 years but it is still going strong in 2024 and although I have slightly younger Nikons it will not be sold.
I'm surprised you have not gotten a D300/D300s since this video. Probably the most useful vintage DSLR you can get for $100 to $125 because of how extremely rugged the body is combined with fast fps, 3d tracking with 51 autofocus points, image quality, and color science. With all these features this not just great for aspiring beginner photographers, but also professionals til this day still use this especially extreme environments like the north pole an or the jungle and swamps for animal photography.
Yo la compré en el año 2011 y estoy muy contento con mi D90, no me ha dado ningún problema y hace poco compré el Nikon 35mm f1,8G y la calidad es impresionante.
The D90 a tank of a camera,, you could hammer a nail in with this camera,and take a picture of it afterwards,so to speak ,,have one love it takes brilliant images ,, it's just a little tank.
subbed, I actually cleaned mine just now, for almost a year now, Ive been comfortable just snapping pictures with my camera phone, earlier, I tested a shot again from my D90, and boy I would be using this again from this day forward.. great content, cheers
I wanted the D90 when it came out. I had and olympus E10 so when one of my partners at wolf camera recommended the d70s which I could afford at the time so I upgraded to that. Good camera that served its purpose. Had I saved a little longer I could have copped the D90
I'm glad you are doing videos on classic gear. because in my humble opinion I really love the price point of older cameras. They take absolutely gorgeous pictures. (hint. half the of the secret is the lenses. LOL). I only buy older DSLRs for picture taking only. For video I am looking a classic digital film camera like a Canon C100 (MK2) or a Canon C300. or maybe a black magic mini ursa, or even a Sony F3 or FS5. these cinema cameras take professional videos and are running 1000 dollars or less in most places now. You can use the Canon EF lenses on Canon C series or use a mount adapter on the other brands. Since everyone is jumping on the mirrorless bandwagon. even the ultimate Canon 1DX mk 2 will be affordable in a few years. I love being able to buy classic gear for so little now. Keep of the good work . This is the very reason i like video content like the ones your making.
I might be wrong but i think that Canon EOS 40D (2007) could feed video via USB to computer or Android Smartphone . It is 1024×680 up to 30 fps (depends on your GPU and CPU). I remeber doing that some 10-15 years ago and quality was pretty good. Working grate trough Android too but that was not available before 2010 or even later. Android app is called DSLR controller and you basicly just attach your camera to smartphone with cable or adapter. This should work with all canon dslrs that have live view. 40d and later, XS/XSi and later.
At 16 after using many film cameras (back when you could get a roll developed with prints at cvs for 12 dollars) I finally saved up and with the help of my mom bought the brand new 5100 with the 35mm, I liked the image quality but I wasn’t happy with all the menus, coming from cameras like the f100 and f4, I was used to dials and buttons for EVERYTHING. So I traded the 5100 for a brand new d90 with some cash on top (used it to get a 50mm 1.4D) and never looked back. I bought d600 later on and still kept my d90 in my car at all times just in case I saw something interesting during my commutes.
Well it was one of the first CMOS sensors in a DSLR and they just learned how to get that grain out of the pictures When I lock at some old D40 or D60 pictures at ISO 400 there's sometimes less grain in the pictures with their CCD sensors
*A whole lot of lenses* work great with it, and of course it depends on what sort of photography you're planning to do. For wildlife you prob want a nice super-tele zoom lens, like the Sigma 150-600, though that is a bit expensive (well more than the camera itself). For macro photography, I'd recommend a good prime lens with the macro feature, e.g. the Tamron 60mm F2 macro....For a lot of other general photography (landscapes, portraits, etc.), the Nikkor 35mm F 1.8 is pretty amazing - great quality and optics, nice wide open aperture, very compact and light, and you should be able to get one for under $100 USD. For a "super-zoom," where you can sit in one spot and take pictures of all different things near and far (e.g. kids running around), the Sigma 18-250 works great...of course it's not quite as high quality optically as a good prime lens, but I'd say the quality is as good as Nikon's own 18-105 kit lens, and you get more than twice the zoom range, and it costs less and only ways a few grams more 🙂
@@earavichandran - While full frame lenses work on the D90, the camera's not using all of it, so I don't know why someone would wanna spend extra for a full frame lens, which would also be bigger and heavier than their DX equivalents.... Some of the lenses I use on my D90 happen to be full frame, but that's just because I already have such lenses, or got a good deal on them. I'm not gonna spend extra just for full frame lenses to use on a crop-sensor camera. The D90 has a built in AF motor, so it will auto focus with all of the older AF lenses built for film photography, which are of course full frame too, and those are often a bargain. As far as the Nikkor 18-140 goes, I'd say the Sigma 18-250 has just as good optical quality, but nearly twice the zoom range and at a bit lower price. One of my favorites though is the Nkkor 35mm F 1.8, which has truly *excellent* optics, at a really great price (under 100 bucks), and is nice and small and light 🙂
If you use this camera within the limits that it was designed for WAY BACK in 2008 then this is still a great camera. The new generation of DSLR cameras wipes the floor with it that said. EDIT... The video quality on the Nikon D90 is embarrassing... If you intend to make lots of videos I suggest you look elsewhere.
I agree as far as the video goes. It was never a great camera for that, even back in the day. For still photos though, I think you're underselling it a bit... Yeah, newer DSLRs (or now mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras too) will give you higher ISO, more autofocus points, more megapixels, etc. But the D90 is really quite good, especially considering that you can get one these days for around $100 USD (give or take a few bucks), which means you can take it anywhere (no great loss if it gets damaged or stolen), and you've got more money to spend on actually traveling places where you can take nice pictures. And unless you're planning on cropping out small portions of your pictures and making large prints of them, 12 mexapixels is actually quite sufficient....Consider that 12 MP is actually six times higher resolution than 1080p, so if you've got, say a 32 inch 1080p TV set, a photo from the D90 camera can be blown up to six times the size of that screen before it starts getting pixelated - even when viewed up close....Of course in practice, larger prints and displays will almost always be viewed from further away, so you could even use it for a gigantic print covering an entire wall of a large building. Billboards are often printed as low as 2 MP resolution, and it works fine, since people usually see them from far away. I'd also add that when it comes to quality photography, about 80% of what makes a great photo is the photographer - his or her innate talent and creativity, and how much they've practiced and learned. Only about 20% is the gear, and of that 20%, I'd say more than half of what makes the difference is the lenses, rather than the camera body itself.
@@Bike_Lion 100% Correct ... Today's best photographers are not the ones with the best gear ... Pointless buying a Nikon D6 if you don't know how to use it.
